Do you have a "litmus test" setting for generic rule sets?

[Thomas Shey]

That's why I said the "from normal person to god" part. I kinda figured that would cover pretty much everything, doesn't it?

I expressed myself poorly. I think there's more than one game that does that that isn't heavily stylized. My suggestion was that the definition of "cover" you're using must be very specific.

Good for them. As I stated in my previous post, I myself prefer purpose built systems.

On some level, so do I. I just happen to think there's a lot of potential campaigns I'd be interested in running (and have in the past) where no purpose built system that covers it really exists. Not infrequently, when purpose built for one specific setting/genre, they will actually be worse for something just different enough that a generic system that's close enough, because they lean into elements that are not present in the other campaign.

And this is, of course, ignoring the question of how worthwhile learning a new system is for each campaign. is But then, I suspect your preference in terms of stylization (and probably rule-lightness) is far different than mine.

As always, when dealing with something like TTRPGs it's mostly a matter of personal preference. I mean, many (if not most) TTRPG players think D&D is good for "generic" fantasy, whereas I think D&D does a really bad job for any kind of fantasy because it does a really bad job emulating any form of fantasy media I have encountered, including emulating D&D novels. Then again maybe it's just because I enjoy learning new things in general, and new TTRPGs specifically. I also enjoy seeing how different mechanics define and inform play. For most people I suspect, learning things, especially marginally complicated things like a TTRPG system (ignoring really "light" systems) is an activity they do not enjoy. At least that's my anecdotal takeaway from the numerous times I've recommended to D&D fans that they should try a different system for a different experience and got told that they don't want to go through the trouble of learning a different system because of the difficulty and time consuming process that they had to endure to learn D&D in the first place.

I'm not hostile to this position, but I do think there's some limits as to how far most people (as you say) are willing to take that. And I think its even more an issue when nothing is liable to be purpose-built for a particular campaign look-and-feel you're trying for.

 

[Umbran]

But yeah, it's frustrating how many threads end up debating the premise of the question rather than the question itself. Sometimes its unavoidable it seems, or else takes a lot of energy to keep it on tracks.

I think that a lot of responses that add up to "generic systems really aren't" maybe kind of denying premise for the thread. It essentially declares the question meaningless out of the gate.

If you want absolutely no denying the premise of the thread, that's what (+) threads are for.

But, then you run a risk - if the thread is, "Tell me how you do (premise) (+)", and the number of people who do (premise) is small, or the premise is counterfactual, then your thread's kind of dead in the water.

 

[Reynard]

If you want absolutely no denying the premise of the thread, that's what (+) threads are for.

But, then you run a risk - if the thread is, "Tell me how you do (premise) (+)", and the number of people who do (premise) is small, or the premise is counterfactual, then your thread's kind of dead in the water.

Is that better or worse than a thread circling the drain for an interminably long time as two posters go back and forth, talking past one another to make the same points over and over and over and over...?

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's an observation of reality

Whether true or not, it doesn't change the fact its still denying premise for the question in the first place.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sort of. I think another poster pointed out it’s limits in anything not pulpy or hard sc-fi. Without force it’s very heroic space opera snd with its very fantasy feeling. Though you can do a lot inside that box with it.

I think arguing almost any generic system has "style" elements baked in is actually a better argument than suggesting it can't cover the functional elements of a setting. Look-and-feel is far more brittle than the actual results-expression of a system.

(Though I still think the hardest area to cover if you're not doing it in very broad strokes is paranormal abilities. You really need some variation on a build-a-power system to cover the ground there, and even then its difficult).

 

[Reynard]

it seems obvious on its face that all universal or generic systems have built in limitations. That hardly seem controversial, and therefore not really worth derailing the thread over.

 

[Umbran]

Is that better or worse than a thread circling the drain for an interminably long time as two posters go back and forth, talking past one another to make the same points over and over and over and over...?

Assuming they stay within board rules, you mean?

Since I am not forced to watch them circle that drain, and I can go something more valuable to me, it is no skin off my nose if they do that. They can knock themselves out around that drain.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you want absolutely no denying the premise of the thread, that's what (+) threads are for.

Noted. And I'm not always hesitant to say that I don't agree with the premise so I don't agree with the conclusion in a discussion. But it still seems like denying-of-premise ends up essentially attempting to swing a thread hard into an entirely different discussion, and I'm not sure I consider that particularly a useful way to go.

But, then you run a risk - if the thread is, "Tell me how you do (premise) (+)", and the number of people who do (premise) is small, or the premise is counterfactual, then your thread's kind of dead in the water.

Might be. I can't help but think that may be more functional than having it immediately take a left turn into, functionally, an entirely different topic sometimes. There's thread drift, and then there's thread-going-up-over-the-embankment.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is that better or worse than a thread circling the drain for an interminably long time as two posters go back and forth, talking past one another to make the same points over and over and over and over...?

Well, that can happen while staying entirely within the premise of a thread, though.

 

[Reynard]

Well, that can happen while staying entirely within the premise of a thread, though.

Oh, sure, but many a good thread has been killed by a 2 poster sniping war.